Yesterday morning, I awoke to a Google Alert for “Lettie Gooch” that references this article. I was completely shocked as I was out of the shop yesterday and wasn’t aware nor informed about any press trying to contact me.

I read the article, where my manager was quoted, aloud to my fiancé , an avid cycler around DC, who bikes to/from the shop regularly from our home on Q Street (which, ironically, also houses a bike lane which he regularly uses). He then begins to get enraged and ask me what does this mean. Does “Lettie Gooch” not want him to be safe and to dodge in and out of traffic with the cars? Why would Kenya say that when she bikes to work in the spring and summer herself?

This article in no way reflects our position on bike lanes or cyclists in the city. I am very disturbed by this article, and have requested a formal retraction.

Hayley Peterson was sent out to find merchants who were opposed bike lanes and apparently didn't find them and used a informal inquiry to speak with me (the owner who was not available) into an opportunity to take her comment that metered parking was more of a deterrent to our customers than bike lanes to a grossly published misquote stating that bike lanes was even more of a deterrent for shoppers.

Why was Lettie Gooch contacted regarding the impact of bike lanes? Our shop is not housed in front of a street that has a bike lane and has not lost any parking spaces in regards to the bike lanes (even along 15th street ) which is what I presume the article perceives as a problem for business owners.

Small businesses are faced with many prominent issues that seriously impact our survival during this economy. The last thing we need is irresponsible reporting to portray an inaccurate and a negative view of us to deter customers from our shop.

As a native Washingtonian, Lettie Gooch prides itself on serving our neighborhood and the community. Many customers cycle to our shop. I guarantee you that Lettie Gooch, its owners and affiliates are not protesting or angered by bike lanes in the city. We welcome and value all business.

As of date, the Examiner has not agreed to a formal retraction but has advised us to write a letter to the editor.

To show our support, clarify our position and to celebrate cyclists in this city we would like to offer everyone that cycles to Lettie Gooch a 10% Discount off the total purchase. So @DCNinja we hope to see you back again soon.

I apologize for any misunderstanding that this article has caused. Please feel free to contact me directly if you would like to further discuss this matter.

Theresa WattsOwner of Lettie Gooch

So there you have it, no one is actually opposed to the bike lane - except maybe the Examiner.

And Dave Jamieson interviews DDOT who is also surprised about the "protest."

DDOT’s Karyn LeBlanc says neither she nor agency director Gabe Klein had heard a peep from downtown merchants before she read the paper yesterday. And the lanes had been in the works for months, with DDOT soliciting feedback from the public. “We did do a lot of outreach with the Downtown D.C. BID and with the residents and businesses along that corridor,” she says. “Change is always difficult. Sometimes it makes people a little anxious.”

What’s more, LeBlanc says with the number of new spaces added to nearby residential streets, the parking situation in the area is pretty much “a wash.” LeBlanc basically says the worries aired in the Examiner piece are imaginary, though she puts it more diplomatically than that. “Biking has increased tremendously, and cyclists don’t just commute. They shop and they go to restaurants and coffeeshops. It’s not taking away from business.”

DDOT recently completed the Draft Concept Plan for the South Capitol Street Trail. This new trail will connect the Douglass Bridge, the military employment centers along the Potomac, Ward 8 neighborhoods and the trail to the Wilson Bridge. Currently, a cyclist can ride south on this route, but can not go north, so the trail would create a brand new connection. The $5.7 million project would be done in four phases (including an interim connection to the Oxon Run Trail). It would overcome the numerous pinch points along the trail by narrowing the roadway - with little to no impact on traffic according to their traffic studies.

The trail

The main trail itself starts at the intersection of S. Capitol St and Firth Sterling Avenue where the current trail off the Douglass Bridge ends. It crosses the streetcar tracks at grade and then runs on the west side of S. Cap (and east of the streetcar for as long as that goes) to the intersection of Overlook Avenue. It then moves to the west side of Overlook to Laboratory Road. Just before Laboratory it crosses to the east side of Overlook and then crosses Laboratory to follow along the south side of that. It would then become a sidepath along Shepherd Parkway, Blue Plains Drive and DC Village Lane to the existing trail connection to Oxon Hill Farm.

In addition, an interim connection would be built between S. Cap and Oxon Run Park and the trail there. The bike plan called for this connection to be a sidepath along S. Cap, but that route is narrow with grade issues, walls, and numerous intersections and driveways. The updated concept is to instead build the connection as an on-road route along Halley Pl, 1st St and Atlantic St SE. Within this corridor, all of the streets are too narrow for bike lanes; however shared lane markings are feasible.

Design

Most of the trail will be 10' wide with up to 10' of separation from the road and a 3' buffer on the other side. But even in the preferred alternative, the trail will be as narrow as 8' with no separation or buffer in a few places. This is because of eight pinch points along the route. In most cases the plan is to overcome these pinch points by narrowing the roadway, removing a lane or both. Where lanes are removed the level of service to drivers is mostly unchanged. At South Capitol and MacDill it drops from a C to a D in the AM and at South Capitol and Malcolm X it drops from an A to a B in the PM.

The narrowest planned location is pinchpoint 3.2 just north of the point where the I-295 exit ramp connects to Overlook Avenue. There is only 22 feet and the trail will get 8 of them.

Pinchpoint between Overlook Ave and Defense Blvd

Another trouble spot is at the light rail platform just south of Firth Sterling. No space was set aside for the trail, so the trail will cross the tracks just north of the station and then use space taken from the roadway between the new road and the station. The design calls for textured paving to deliniate the trail.

Trail near the streetcar platform

Phases

The trail is to be built in four phases.

Phase I constructs the interim trail from South Capitol and Overlook to Oxon Run Park. This is an on-road route with widened and completed sidewalks and costs $100,000

Phase II is the construction of the trail within DC Village. DC village is going through a redevelopment project and the future trail alignment within this segment will be refined once the redevelopment proceeds further. This phase will be done in conjunction with the DC Village work.

Phase III includes the trail from Laboratory Road to Malcolm X Avenue, where the trail connects with the proposed trail along the DHS access road. For this reason, the report recommends that this phase be coordinated with the proposed improvements to I-295/ South Capitol Street, as a part of the DHS redevelopment.

Phase IV completes the trail by building the section from Malcolm X to Firth Sterling. The intersection at Firth Sterling is also dependent on the St Elizabeths-DHS project.

Combined with the St. Elizabeths trail and the Oxon Run Trails, this becomes one piece in an integrated and nearly complete trail system in southern DC.

WUSA 9 has a follow-up to yesterday's poorly researched story on "protests" about the 15th Street bike lanes. They interviewed a wider range of people, including cyclists, about the impact of the new bike lane. Something I failed to mention yesterday was that not all of the parking spaces were removed. There are still several spaces along that stretch of 15th (any frequent riders want to guess how many?) and about a dozen were removed. Because of the law of diminishing returns, the least valuable spaces were the ones that were removed. If only 12 out of 100 spaces were removed, that is kind of trivial, especially since they were replaced with spaces on side streets.

"I think those meters are more of a deterrent," said Kenya Rennie, who herself bikes to work at Lettie Gooch Boutique. "I think the bike lanes are safer and actually quicker many times."

The District's Department of Transportation consulted with property owners when planning the lanes. Spokeswoman Karyn LeBlanc said that they adjusted plans afterwards.

"We actually went along the 15th Street corridor and those spaces where we had to remove particular parking spots, we reallocated new parking spaces on the side streets," she said. "And the idea behind the bike lanes was to create a safer zone for bicyclists but still provide that parking for people on the outside lane."

WABA meanwhile, sent a letter to the editor of the Examiner about the story. Among other things, they criticize the writer for unquestionably repeating statements by opponents, without noted the failures in their arguments (such as noting that riding on the sidewalk in that area is illegal or that bike lanes might very well increase business).

Update: Despite the fact that I live in a glass house, I'm going to throw stones. The WUSA 9 story is headlined as "More Bike lanes, Less Parking Spaces" instead of fewer parking spaces. So, I'm not alone in making grammatical errors.

The 1,000-foot tunnel near East-West Highway is proposed to accommodate rail cars and part of a 4.5-mile bicycle trail between downtown Bethesda and the Silver Spring transit center, but engineers can't make both fit without cutting into the foundations of buildings on Wisconsin Avenue. A bike tunnel now sits between above-ground buildings and their foundations, but the project design calls for the rail tunnel to be built below the bike path.

The two concerns are how lowering the tunnel will effect the buildings and, of course, money.

"I would say we have to be open to alternatives, in case the tunnel physically isn't feasible or the cost is unaffordable — we haven't come to those conclusions yet," Erenrich said.

It seems too early to panic IMO

Despite that challenge and a $20 million to $25 million cost estimate, for which no funding has been secured, the county, state and building owners are moving forward with engineering studies, expected to be complete this spring. If those problems can't be solved, one option would be to build the bike path above ground, said Gary Erenrich

Maryland Transit Administration and the county Department of Transportation are working with the buildings' owners on engineering studies that will provide more detail about how lowering tracks will affect the structural integrity of the buildings, which Madden said is among his major concerns about the tunnel.

"Personally, I don't think our engineering studies will tell us anything that says we can't do it," Madden said. "But we want to be able to tell the county."

It seems that Pat Burda - who opposes the Purple Line - and Peter Gray of CCCT are in agreement about where the trail should be. Neither thinks the trail should be above ground.

Peter Gray, vice chairman of the Coalition of the Capital Crescent Trail, favors an underground tunnel and believes an above-ground bike path would unnecessarily split the Capital Crescent Trail and the Georgetown Branch. The state and county should find a way to pay for the project, even if it is expensive, he said.

"I mean, times are lean, but it would be a huge disservice to the trail and to the county to cut it in two," Gray said.

Gray said he is concerned about the outcome of the entire trail, but is not overly worried that the tunnel project will get nixed. Part of his confidence is due to longstanding support from the Montgomery County Council.

Madden also pointed out that the bike path in the tunnel is part of the project's master plan and supported by the County Council.

In the coming year, the county and MTA will hold community meetings about neighborhood-specific elements of the project, such as Metro stations, the trail and alignment through Chevy Chase and Bethesda, Madden said.

Some merchants are upset about the new bike lanes along 15th Street NW - the Examiner calls it a protest.

"I don't know why they wouldn't just chop away two feet of sidewalk," said Haroon Mokel, campus director at Strayer University near 15th and M streets. "That's where bikers should be anyway, is the sidewalk."

Wow. It's like one of those games I did as a kid where you try to circle everything in a picture that's wrong. First of all, is Strayer University really a merchant? Then I have to ask why he thinks 2 feet is enough space to bike or why the space should come from pedestrian space and not driver space. Or why he thinks that sidewalk cycling is where cyclists belong since it's illegal in that part of DC.

Mostly, it seems, merchants are upset about the loss of parking,

the District finished painting over more than two dozen parking spaces along 15th Street southbound

DDOT said it was more like a dozen and some of them will be replaced on side streets.

Beauty salon owner Lisette Attias said she's an advocate for bike lanes, but not in front of her salon.

"Why don't they use the streets that aren't crowded?" said Attias, owner of Piaf Salon and Day Spa near 15th and L streets Northwest. "It's going to hurt my business. It's going to be hurting a lot of businesses."

Attias said most of her customers are motorists.

"We are still a city of drivers and business is dependent on that," she said.

Are we? I think most trips are done be something other than car. And bike lanes can be good for business. This is really Richard Layman's territory, but I think having people pass by your business may be more valuable than having people parking in front of it. And the bike lane will draw more people to use 15th.

Suddenly there is a lot of concern about parking meter revenue, because drivers love contributing their fair share of parking meter money.

The lanes also shuttered more than one dozen parking meters, many of which generated revenues for more than one parking space.

The D.C. Department of Transportation plans to erect new meters elsewhere to make up for the loss of revenue, according to DDOT spokeswoman Karyn LeBlanc.

The article is a bit one-sided, never interviewing anyone at DDOT or WABA, but it does have one alternative opinion.

VIDA Fitness manager Jeff Code said the new lanes have eased his daily commute to work at 15th and Church streets Northwest.

"The new lanes have been very helpful," he said, "especially now that cars turning right [onto 15th] have to stop and yield to bikers."

So really the headline should read "Merchant and Strayer University guy who said his 'opinions have no connection to the university' dislike new bike lanes, but another merchant likes them. No one seems to be actually protesting." But that's probably too long.

In fact, the protest is so non-existant that another article by the same writer makes the point that, unlike in NYC where some bike lanes were removed due to protests by businesses, there is no organized protest.

Some business owners in D.C. are beginning to grumble about new bike lanes downtown, but the District has far from an organized opposition to the project, said Gerry Widdicombe, director of economic development for the D.C. Business Improvement District.

"I know in New York they are having a bike lane revolt," he said. "I don't think we're there yet."

Widdicombe said the District's bike lanes could use some improvements, such as more signage for cyclists. He said he is working with the D.C. Department of Transportation to implement those improvements quickly as the city's commuters acclimate to sharing more roads with bikes.

I've included only part of it here. If you were upset about it last week, you should read the whole thing.

While many WABA members have been supportive and signed, others have responded with strong counter-arguments focused on the idea that if the laws regulating our roadways fail to adequately account for or protect cyclists, we should not resolve to follow them.

And that’s absolutely fine.

Nothing in being a WABA member ties anyone to a particular strategy for improving the laws regulating cyclists. But as an organization, we do have a choice to make. We hear time and time again the perception that WABA should be doing more to ensure that cyclists follow laws and ride safely. And currently, that perception of cyclists as scofflaws presents a barrier to the sort of political action that could successfully improve the safety of cyclists in the area.

Fundamentally, our goal is to change those improper laws and achieve those safety improvements, and to take the necessary steps to do so. I do believe that cyclists should ride responsibly, and I disagree with anyone who says that resolving to do so implies an apology for cycling or a backing away from that core goal.

Bottom line: The scofflaw perception is getting in the way of needed changes, and we need some mechanism to combat it. This pledge is meant to do that in order to set the stage for the next round of advocacy. With a new year, new leadership in several local jurisdictions, and a growing number of cyclists in the area, this pledge is meant to help us address the scofflaw issue and move past it to real advocacy on behalf of our members and the community of cyclists.

The Bicycle Commuter and Parking Expansion Act of 2010 passed last week. This amends the 2008 law to allow the mayor to enforce it. WABA notes that the fiscal impact statement assumes that it will cost ~$55,000 to enforce less whatever fines are paid.

Once implemented, the proposed legislation could generate fine collections from buildings in violation of the bicycle parking requirements. However, this revenue cannot be estimated until the rulemaking required by the proposed legislation is completed.

In order to enforce the requirements of the legislation, additional building inspectors would be needed to conduct bicycle parking inspections in more than 10,000 private residential and commercial buildings. Without any implementation plans, it is not possible to estimate the cost of enforcement. However, the cost of each building inspector is estimated at $54,867.

Shane Farthing of WABA asks if that would be necessary if instead the District relied on reports of non-compliance from cyclists calling 311.

There would probably be some labor costs, but since the inspectors would be much more likely to spend their time inspecting buildings that are out of compliance, and thus collecting fines, it would be more likely this would be revenue neutral or even positive. If so, I'd like to seeing the extra revenue go toward bike parking on DC property.